The right to choose

The right to choose

The church, for that matter the Roman Catholic church in
Indonesia, is not known for stirring political controversy.
Therefore it came as a major surprise when news surfaced last
week that the Bishops Council of Indonesia had issued a letter to
all Roman Catholic churches in the country, stating that one
would not commit a sin if one did not vote in the upcoming
general election.

The statement must be read in its entirety, lest one is lead
to a wrong and possibly dangerous conclusion about the church's
role in Indonesian politics. The council said it had made the
statement in response to questions from members of the church. In
view of the approaching election, such a question is therefore
valid, and that the church was only performing its duty when it
gave its moral stance on the subject of election.

But legally, there is no obligation for anyone to vote in the
election. The 1985 electoral law states that voting is a right
for every adult Indonesian of sound mind. The law does not
stipulate any sanctions for people not exercising their right to
vote. What the law does is to make it a criminal offense for
anyone to prevent others from voting, or discourage others from
exercising their civil right.

President Soeharto put the matter clearly when he spoke on
Friday about the need to ensure a successful election: that
everyone should vote and that, those who do not, do so at their
own loss because the election is a once every-five-year
opportunity for people to influence the course of national
development.

The debate about the right to vote has surfaced every time a
general election has neared. The 1997 election is no exception.
It just happens that this time the debate was started by the
leaders of the Roman Catholic church.

In countries where democracy has developed to an advanced
stage, the right to vote implies that one can choose not to vote
for whatever reason. In U.S. elections, a voter turnout of less
than 50 percent of the total registered voters, is acceptable,
and the results, like President Clinton's reelection in November,
stand. In the U.S., registering as voters is an option, and only
about half of all American eligible voters are registered.

Voter turnouts in Indonesia's last five elections have always
exceeded 90 percent of registered and eligible voters. This is a
remarkable achievement, not only compared to developed countries,
but even by the standards of other developing countries.

In Indonesia, however, the percentage of people who did not
vote in past elections has been, rightly or wrongly, used as an
indication to gauge the level of discontent towards the political
system of the New Order. Unfortunately, the government's
obsession to go for the greatest turnout -- sometimes going to
great lengths to ensure that everyone voted -- has given greater
currency to the belief that those who did not vote were
boycotting the election.

Imperfections in the electoral system and the way elections
have been held have further given credence to the theory. Even
the United Development Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party
are complaining that the electoral laws were designed to ensure
the maximum victory for Golkar.

The system's flaws have made more plausible the claims that
elections are a mere constitutional formality, a process
legitimizing Golkar's hold on power. One could certainly argue
that a political system that has seen five general elections and
ensured political stability and sustainable economic growth in
the last 30 years is worth defending.

But this is exactly what a general election is all about, in
Indonesia or elsewhere. An election is a rare chance for people
to express their true feelings about a situation, including their
feelings about a political system or a government in power and
whether they want to endorse them. The only way to measure
people's support for a system or a ruling political grouping is
therefore to give the people full liberty in exercising their
right to vote on May 29.